An energy bill without improved fuel economy standards simply won't make a serious dent in our oil dependency or help consumers at the pump. Yet Detroit, rather than demonstrating the can-do innovation that once formed the very basis of American industry, seems caught between boasting about past fuel economy achievements and outright rejection of further progress.

Ford Motor Co. calls its Escape hybrid "the world's cleanest and most fuel-efficient sport utility." General Motors Corp. touts 24 vehicles, from two-seaters to sport utility vehicles, that get 30 or more miles per gallon on the highway. And DaimlerChrysler advertises a 30 mpg Jeep under the slogan, "Fewer pit stops. More mountain tops."

But when the Senate voted to phase in a moderate, fleet-wide fuel economy standard of 35 mpg by 2020, those same companies declared the new target impossible to reach and set out to undermine it in the House of Representatives. In terms of vehicle fuel efficiency, Detroit's claims to consumers and to Congress are miles apart.

Industry's resistance is hardly surprising. Automakers previously predicted mandatory seat belts, catalytic converters and emissions controls would drive them out of business. During the first fuel economy debate in the 1970s, GM testified the proposed mileage standards would eliminate all vehicles larger than the Chevy Nova.

Congress passed that bill anyway, efficiency doubled during the next decade and the nation now saves 117 million gallons of gasoline each day as a result, all without a Nova in sight. Yet car standards remain stuck at the level they reached in 1985, while the average vehicle sold today is less efficient than it was 20 years ago.

Reversing that trend, the Senate passed an energy bill last month that raises vehicle efficiency 10 mpg by 2020, consistent with what President Bush called for in his 2007 State of the Union address. The measure passed overwhelmingly, with broad bipartisan support.

When phased in, those fuel economy improvements would save twice as much oil as we currently import from Iraq. They also promise major relief for consumers at the pump and significant reductions from one of the nation's biggest sources of global warming pollution.

After unsuccessfully fighting the Senate bill, industry has redoubled its efforts in the House, promoting a weaker proposal that would give automakers more time to hit significantly lower standards.

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers has called the Senate target "unattainable," although a 2002 report from the National Academy of Sciences concluded the U.S. fleet could average 37 mpg within 10-15 years - even without hybrids or advanced diesel technology.

Industry's position on Capitol Hill, however, often contradicts its stance on the car lot. In May, for instance, the CEO of DaimlerChrysler signed a letter warning about the Senate bill's impact on U.S. jobs. Weeks later, he turned around and signed a deal with a Chinese auto company to import cars that meet rising consumer demand for efficiency.

And Ford just announced plans to sell hydrogen vehicles and plug-in hybrids within five to 10 years. But raise average fuel economy to 35 mpg in 2020? "Nobody can meet those targets," said a senior executive. Well, nobody other than the European Union, Japan and China, which already have standards near or above that level.

A report from a former GM market analyst actually found the Detroit Three could boost profits $2 billion in 2010 by investing heavily in fuel-saving technologies today. Yet, if gas prices stay high and those companies do not change course, they stand to lose $3.6 billion that year.

With the House set to begin its energy debate, it has a chance to complete the fuel economy initiative and send the biggest vehicle efficiency gains in decades to the president's desk.

To do so, however, lawmakers have to stand firm behind the 35 mpg target proposed by congressmen Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Todd Platts, R-Pa., and resist efforts to set lower standards that would leave the nation more dependent on foreign oil and Americans paying more for gas.

Unfortunately, domestic automakers may continue to claim that meaningful progress is impossible - until the day Congress leaves them no choice. Then, just as they've done in the past, they'll go from kicking and screaming to innovating. They may even regain some of the market share they've lost to competitors who promote greater efficiency and end up with higher mileage vehicles to tout in their ads.

© 2007, Pew Charitable Trusts. Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.